This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
No official German source has ever stated that the Leopard 2 have Chobham armour, and for a good reason: it doesn't. :o) -- MWAK 08:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IIRC Jane's Armored Fighting Vehicles describes Leo2's armor as "Third-generation laminate (equivalent to Chobham)". I assume they mean that the armor package is speculated to have Chobham-like resistance to HEAT penetrators. Jasonfahy 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"it is mainly the smaller countries that have adopted it."
Barely Spain is a small country. Holland, Swede, Denmark and others has choosed the Leopard2 as well.
-- MWAK 07:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've read in The Encylopedia Of Tanks And Armoured Fighting Vehicles(Found Here: http://www.netstoreusa.com/hjbooks/186/1862271887.shtml) that the Leopard 2 uses chobham. Dudtz 12/30/05 7:21 PM EST
Driving a Leopard 2, we reached about 100 km/h on the road. But it was extremly loud inside the tank.
well, now it is official. i send a mail to the press bureau of the bundeswehr concerning the question, if the leo2a6 has chobham like armor or not. this is what i got as a reply: Sehr geehrter [name deleted],
haben Sie vielen Dank für Ihre freundliche Anfrage, die ich Ihnen gerne beantworte. Der Leopard2 (A1-A6) verfügt im Prinzip über eine Chobham-Panzerung. Wie Sie richtig geschrieben haben, handelt es sich dabei um eine Mehrschichtpanzerung, die aus unterschiedlichen Werkstoffen besteht. Ein charakteristisches Merkmal dieser Panzerung ist ihr kastenförmiges aussehen (vgl. Leopard2A4). Die Version A6 verfügt über eine zusätzliche Modulpanzerung (keilförmige Elemente am Turm). Diese sind aber nicht Bestandteil der Mehrschichtpanzerung.
In der Hoffnung hinreichend geantwortet zu haben, stehe ich für weitere Fragen gerne zur Verfügung und verbleibe,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Im Auftrag
[name deleted] Oberleutnant und Presseoffizier Diplom-Kaufmann
Streitkräfteamt InfoService Bürgeranfragen, Bearbeiter: OLt Schubert, Rochusstraße 32, 53123 Bonn, Telefon: 0228/52 03-206 // Fax: 0228/52 03-282
translation: "in principle, the leopard 2a6 has a chobham(-like)armor. as you noticed correctly this is a multilayer armor" don´t know if i translated "mehrschichtschott panzerung" correctly, but well, bottom line: it has a chobham-like armor (officialy) now, will someone pls edit the entry User:80.129.149.12
Chobham Armour-Advanced laminated armour first developed at theFighting Vehicle Research Establishment,Chobham,England. Dudtz 5/21/06 12:16 PM EST
I wouldn't just use steel in the armour I would throw on some reactive armour and some slat arour to protect against RPGs Dudtz
July 29th 5:11 PM EST
Furthermore, we aren't talking about a Sherman trying to jam up the turret of a Tiger by hitting it "under the chin" - modern kinetic penetrators don't ricochet easily at all. If they come in ten degrees (sometimes as little as five) off the plane of the armor plate, they'll "dig in" rather than glance off. Jasonfahy 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Defence against RPG's, not very relevant in the Central European Theatre" what about the Soviets in the 70's and 80's they had plenty of RPGs Dudtz 8/23/05 4:51 PM EST
I don't think the Soviets/Russians would let their army get crushed. The Soviets/Russians have more tanks than anyone else. USSR/Russia would use their most powerful nukes on US missile silos and NORAD all at once. the Russians could do this while the US president is chopping lumber and away from his nuke arming suitcase. Russian attack subs could head for US and British SLBMs the Russians would only have to worry about a few stray subs and bombers. Russia can then move deeper into Europe Dudtz 9/1/05 3:58 PM EST
-- MWAK 07:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
"In a German test in which a Leopard 2A4 still fitted with the earlier armor configuration was shot at by a T-80, the T-80 could only penetrate its armor at ranges shorter than 1200 m." - Could the person who wrote that give some more info and data about the said tests? A loose bit on information like that without any backing isn't very credible on its own.
Agreed, meaningless. What was the T-80 firing? Training rounds? First-generation HEAT? BM42? Jasonfahy 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"In a test in which a Leopard 2 A5 was shot at by another Leopard 2 A5 only one out of eight hits on the turret front reached the main armour." - I'd like to know the source of that information as well. I have very hard time believing that for a fact, since the add-on armor really isn't thick enough to stop sabot penetrators, and even against HEAT it would only provide stand-off. The angle there is to redirect and erode the penetrator more so than to deflect them (deflection doesn't really occur much with long-rod penetrators).
Removed these for now, if you can provide some proof to back those claims up, feel free to re-enter them. Exel 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Above you describe the function of and idea behind this rather unique feature of the Leo2A5 and A6, which is also their most distinct difference from earlier versions... Why not describe it in the article itself? There seems to be a lot of confusion about this armor, in paricular, many seem to think it is solid and the word "shot-trap" pops up every now and then when the A5 is discussed. Regards -- 84.152.104.91 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
changed Bergepanzer 2 to BPz3; BPz 2 was based on the Leopard 1 model
70,000 tanks??? huh?. Are you talking about MBT's here? I've NEVER heard that figure. The most I've heard at the end of the cold war was about twenty something thousand. 68.237.98.55 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The IS-2 + IS-3 are a good match for the US's reserve tank(M-60) and some AFVs, Dudtz 11/30/05 7:25 PM EST
Gallery Images Leopard 2 Krauss Maffei Wegmann
Gallery Image Panzerschnellbrücke 2 Krauss Maffei Wegmann
Gallery Images Rheinmetall-DeTec AG
Image Leopard 2 Rheinmetall-DeTec AG
Mwak, since you seem to be knowlegeable in this area (and Im sure other areas as well). Can you tell me the proportion of tanks the US had in Germany(Europe) to those they retained in the states or other theatres. And also how fast would it have taken them to deploy them to Europe. You talk about this first eschelon second eschelon stuff and air/land doctrine, but I think you (and not just you but the ex nato planners as well) are failing to keep in mind that the soviets also had a large numerical superiority in tactical aircraft. Basically anything the west could do the ruskies could do on a larger scale.
Also while you're at it can you give me the same proportion of tactical aircraft the US had in Europe to those in other theatres, I figure the deployment speed would be alot faster than the tanks.
Where on Earth have you come up with the ideas that any Leopard 2 would have instruments to track incoming threats, let alone any active protection suite to engage them or their source automatically? I don't know what kind of systems the factory is testing with their 2A6EX - which is a DEMO MODEL and NOT a production model - but I'm certainly not aware of any such systems being installed on any in-service variants of the tank. Exel 10:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Leopard 2 PSO - (Peace Support Operations). Version for the urban combat
http://www2.janes.com/janesdata/mags/jdw/history/jdw2006/images/p1132141.jpg
I heard the L-2S swedish version is so heavy 72 tons due to excessive armour add-ons at the top. Is that 72 long, short or metric tons? Anyhow sounds terrible, as the WWII KingTiger was 70 metric tons and a lot them were left behind by the nazis here in Hungary as they were trapped in the mud.
I see no reason in making land battleships, just like sea battleships are obsolete. The twin-head RPG-7 warhead did penetrate the M1 in Iraq. Foot soldiers who are entirely dedicated to the cause at all cost will always be able to destroy tanks. Anything beyond 40 tons is a waste of money and mobility. 195.70.32.136 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that the Chinese are/were looking at a 140mm gun for their Type 99 MBT. Is there a cite for this? The Type 99 currently has a 125mm smoothbore, and I haven't seen anything to indicate they're upgunning it. -- Hongooi 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought only the 2A6EXs were equipped with the L55? What other differences are there between the 2A6EX and the vanilla 2A6? -- Edward Sandstig 22:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we please have 'L2A6' and other abbreviations direct to this article?-- Hellogoodsir 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know that the two countries were talking about a deal for Leopard tanks but it is really a new event. I'm not sure Turkey has 350 new tanks today because it is an important decision for the military (For example, Turkey going to buy 20-30 new F-16 jets to close the gap -actually we have 240 something F-16s and I don't understand what the military mentions by "gap"- until our new F-35 jets arrival at 2013 and we know all those). Can someone confirm that Turkey has 350 Leopards? With respect, Deliogul 15:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Canada may purchase/lease a number of Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A6M's [1]. Right now Canada has a number of older Leopard 1s serving in combat in Afghanistan and may be looking to replace them with the newer and more survivable Leo 2s. L.J. Brooks 09:14, 14 Feb 2007 (UTC)
Here is an update [2] on Canada's plan to lease 20 Bundeswehr Leopard 2 A6M. According to various reports the lease has been approved by cabinet and is just awaiting the Prime Minister's approval. L.J. Brooks 11:44, 04 March 2007 (UTC)
Updated the page with the latest announcement that Canada is acquiring 120 Leopard 2s from the Netherlands and Germany. L.J. Brooks 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no reference that gives the breakdown of the number of 2A4s and 2A6s that Canada is purchasing. In fact, the only references I have seen suggest that all the ones we are purchasing (as opposed to the 20 we are leasing from Germany) are 2A4s. None of the references given in the article give the breakdown of models, only the breakdown of how many and what their general purpose will be (operational vs. training vs. support). I would like to know where people are getting the information that we are getting 40 2A4s & 40 2A6s. If there are no references to this breakdown, I intend to remove this info from the article. Kurt 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Breakdown here:
[3] Those more informed (i.e. the people in the military) quote the latter of 40 Leopard 2A6's (20 of them upgraded from the Leopard 2A4's), and 40 Leopard 2A4's.
ThePointblank
03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the recent edit: The tanks are from the Dutch, as stated in this press release [5]:
12-04-2007 22:34 NEDERLAND VERKOOPT LEOPARD TANKS AAN CANADA Defensie heeft honderd Leopard gevechtstanks verkocht aan Canada. De overeenkomst werd bekend gemaakt tijdens het bezoek van minister van Defensie, Eimert van Middelkoop, aan Canada. Het gaat om twintig Leopard’s 2 A6 en tachtig Leopard’s 2 A4.
Het afstoten van de tanks is onderdeel van de reductie van gevechtstanks waartoe Defensie al eerder besloot. Nederland houdt honderdtien Leopard’s 2 A6 tanks operationeel.
De aan Canada verkochte Leopard’s 2 A6 zijn vorig jaar volledig bijgewerkt. Defensie gaat als onderdeel van de overeenkomst de scholing van Canadese instructeurs verzorgen. De trainingen beginnen in mei.
Minister van Defensie Eimert van Middelkoop woont in Canada de ministeriële "Regional Command South" bijeenkomst in Quebec bij. Zie onderstaande link voor meer info over het bezoek.
Rough translation:
"The Ministry of Defence has sold a hundred Leopard Main Battle Tanks to Canada. De agreement was made public during the visit of Minister of Defence, Eimert van Middelkoop, to Canada. It concerns twenty Leopard 2 A6's and eighty Leopard 2 A4's.
The disposal of the tanks is part of the reduction of Main Battle Tanks to which the Ministry had already previously planned. The Netherlands will keep a hundred and ten operational Leopard 2 A6's.
The Leopard 2 A6 now sold to Canada were completely refurbished/overhauled last year. The Ministry will as part of the agreement take care of the training of Canadian instructors. Thise will start in May.
Minister of Defence Eimert van Middelkoop is currently active at the ministerial "Regional Command South" meeting in Quebec."
ThePointblank 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know how much this or any of ther other main battle tanks cost?
I re-organized the variants based on which German variant the foreign variants were derived from. Is this acceptable, or would you guys rather have the old way of listing things? (A1 to A6, then A6M and then national variants, then engineering variants) -- Edward Sandstig 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The acquisition of Leopard 2 tanks by Canada is vapourware. The intention to make the deal has been announced, but there is no official word that any tanks have been transferred. Please don't list Canada as having 100 or 20 Leopard 2 tanks, because as far as we know, it doesn't have them. Please don't change the facts for the sake of format.
Regarding status and timings, the CF backgrounder only says "Canada is negotiating government-to-government agreements for both borrowing and acquiring the Leopard 2 tanks. ... The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer." [6] So it sounds like neither deal is finalized, but the 20 German tanks are expected to be in Canadian hands and in the field very soon. — Michael Z. 2007-07-09 05:56 Z
I don't know why people keep changing the section where it states that the 20 German Leopard 2's are loaned, not leased so that it states that the tanks are leased. Keep the facts straight and consistent throughout the article; the 20 Leopard 2A6M's are LOANED. Not LEASED. According to CTV, Germany, which has “ been criticized for not allowing [its] troops to take part in the fighting in southern Afghanistan, have refused to take any money for the tanks Canadians have borrowed”. [9] The section stating that the Germans are not accepting any money from Canada for borrowing its tanks implies LOANED. Not LEASED. Period. ThePointblank 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
No official German source has ever stated that the Leopard 2 have Chobham armour, and for a good reason: it doesn't. :o) -- MWAK 08:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IIRC Jane's Armored Fighting Vehicles describes Leo2's armor as "Third-generation laminate (equivalent to Chobham)". I assume they mean that the armor package is speculated to have Chobham-like resistance to HEAT penetrators. Jasonfahy 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"it is mainly the smaller countries that have adopted it."
Barely Spain is a small country. Holland, Swede, Denmark and others has choosed the Leopard2 as well.
-- MWAK 07:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've read in The Encylopedia Of Tanks And Armoured Fighting Vehicles(Found Here: http://www.netstoreusa.com/hjbooks/186/1862271887.shtml) that the Leopard 2 uses chobham. Dudtz 12/30/05 7:21 PM EST
Driving a Leopard 2, we reached about 100 km/h on the road. But it was extremly loud inside the tank.
well, now it is official. i send a mail to the press bureau of the bundeswehr concerning the question, if the leo2a6 has chobham like armor or not. this is what i got as a reply: Sehr geehrter [name deleted],
haben Sie vielen Dank für Ihre freundliche Anfrage, die ich Ihnen gerne beantworte. Der Leopard2 (A1-A6) verfügt im Prinzip über eine Chobham-Panzerung. Wie Sie richtig geschrieben haben, handelt es sich dabei um eine Mehrschichtpanzerung, die aus unterschiedlichen Werkstoffen besteht. Ein charakteristisches Merkmal dieser Panzerung ist ihr kastenförmiges aussehen (vgl. Leopard2A4). Die Version A6 verfügt über eine zusätzliche Modulpanzerung (keilförmige Elemente am Turm). Diese sind aber nicht Bestandteil der Mehrschichtpanzerung.
In der Hoffnung hinreichend geantwortet zu haben, stehe ich für weitere Fragen gerne zur Verfügung und verbleibe,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Im Auftrag
[name deleted] Oberleutnant und Presseoffizier Diplom-Kaufmann
Streitkräfteamt InfoService Bürgeranfragen, Bearbeiter: OLt Schubert, Rochusstraße 32, 53123 Bonn, Telefon: 0228/52 03-206 // Fax: 0228/52 03-282
translation: "in principle, the leopard 2a6 has a chobham(-like)armor. as you noticed correctly this is a multilayer armor" don´t know if i translated "mehrschichtschott panzerung" correctly, but well, bottom line: it has a chobham-like armor (officialy) now, will someone pls edit the entry User:80.129.149.12
Chobham Armour-Advanced laminated armour first developed at theFighting Vehicle Research Establishment,Chobham,England. Dudtz 5/21/06 12:16 PM EST
I wouldn't just use steel in the armour I would throw on some reactive armour and some slat arour to protect against RPGs Dudtz
July 29th 5:11 PM EST
Furthermore, we aren't talking about a Sherman trying to jam up the turret of a Tiger by hitting it "under the chin" - modern kinetic penetrators don't ricochet easily at all. If they come in ten degrees (sometimes as little as five) off the plane of the armor plate, they'll "dig in" rather than glance off. Jasonfahy 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Defence against RPG's, not very relevant in the Central European Theatre" what about the Soviets in the 70's and 80's they had plenty of RPGs Dudtz 8/23/05 4:51 PM EST
I don't think the Soviets/Russians would let their army get crushed. The Soviets/Russians have more tanks than anyone else. USSR/Russia would use their most powerful nukes on US missile silos and NORAD all at once. the Russians could do this while the US president is chopping lumber and away from his nuke arming suitcase. Russian attack subs could head for US and British SLBMs the Russians would only have to worry about a few stray subs and bombers. Russia can then move deeper into Europe Dudtz 9/1/05 3:58 PM EST
-- MWAK 07:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
"In a German test in which a Leopard 2A4 still fitted with the earlier armor configuration was shot at by a T-80, the T-80 could only penetrate its armor at ranges shorter than 1200 m." - Could the person who wrote that give some more info and data about the said tests? A loose bit on information like that without any backing isn't very credible on its own.
Agreed, meaningless. What was the T-80 firing? Training rounds? First-generation HEAT? BM42? Jasonfahy 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"In a test in which a Leopard 2 A5 was shot at by another Leopard 2 A5 only one out of eight hits on the turret front reached the main armour." - I'd like to know the source of that information as well. I have very hard time believing that for a fact, since the add-on armor really isn't thick enough to stop sabot penetrators, and even against HEAT it would only provide stand-off. The angle there is to redirect and erode the penetrator more so than to deflect them (deflection doesn't really occur much with long-rod penetrators).
Removed these for now, if you can provide some proof to back those claims up, feel free to re-enter them. Exel 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Above you describe the function of and idea behind this rather unique feature of the Leo2A5 and A6, which is also their most distinct difference from earlier versions... Why not describe it in the article itself? There seems to be a lot of confusion about this armor, in paricular, many seem to think it is solid and the word "shot-trap" pops up every now and then when the A5 is discussed. Regards -- 84.152.104.91 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
changed Bergepanzer 2 to BPz3; BPz 2 was based on the Leopard 1 model
70,000 tanks??? huh?. Are you talking about MBT's here? I've NEVER heard that figure. The most I've heard at the end of the cold war was about twenty something thousand. 68.237.98.55 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The IS-2 + IS-3 are a good match for the US's reserve tank(M-60) and some AFVs, Dudtz 11/30/05 7:25 PM EST
Gallery Images Leopard 2 Krauss Maffei Wegmann
Gallery Image Panzerschnellbrücke 2 Krauss Maffei Wegmann
Gallery Images Rheinmetall-DeTec AG
Image Leopard 2 Rheinmetall-DeTec AG
Mwak, since you seem to be knowlegeable in this area (and Im sure other areas as well). Can you tell me the proportion of tanks the US had in Germany(Europe) to those they retained in the states or other theatres. And also how fast would it have taken them to deploy them to Europe. You talk about this first eschelon second eschelon stuff and air/land doctrine, but I think you (and not just you but the ex nato planners as well) are failing to keep in mind that the soviets also had a large numerical superiority in tactical aircraft. Basically anything the west could do the ruskies could do on a larger scale.
Also while you're at it can you give me the same proportion of tactical aircraft the US had in Europe to those in other theatres, I figure the deployment speed would be alot faster than the tanks.
Where on Earth have you come up with the ideas that any Leopard 2 would have instruments to track incoming threats, let alone any active protection suite to engage them or their source automatically? I don't know what kind of systems the factory is testing with their 2A6EX - which is a DEMO MODEL and NOT a production model - but I'm certainly not aware of any such systems being installed on any in-service variants of the tank. Exel 10:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Leopard 2 PSO - (Peace Support Operations). Version for the urban combat
http://www2.janes.com/janesdata/mags/jdw/history/jdw2006/images/p1132141.jpg
I heard the L-2S swedish version is so heavy 72 tons due to excessive armour add-ons at the top. Is that 72 long, short or metric tons? Anyhow sounds terrible, as the WWII KingTiger was 70 metric tons and a lot them were left behind by the nazis here in Hungary as they were trapped in the mud.
I see no reason in making land battleships, just like sea battleships are obsolete. The twin-head RPG-7 warhead did penetrate the M1 in Iraq. Foot soldiers who are entirely dedicated to the cause at all cost will always be able to destroy tanks. Anything beyond 40 tons is a waste of money and mobility. 195.70.32.136 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that the Chinese are/were looking at a 140mm gun for their Type 99 MBT. Is there a cite for this? The Type 99 currently has a 125mm smoothbore, and I haven't seen anything to indicate they're upgunning it. -- Hongooi 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought only the 2A6EXs were equipped with the L55? What other differences are there between the 2A6EX and the vanilla 2A6? -- Edward Sandstig 22:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we please have 'L2A6' and other abbreviations direct to this article?-- Hellogoodsir 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know that the two countries were talking about a deal for Leopard tanks but it is really a new event. I'm not sure Turkey has 350 new tanks today because it is an important decision for the military (For example, Turkey going to buy 20-30 new F-16 jets to close the gap -actually we have 240 something F-16s and I don't understand what the military mentions by "gap"- until our new F-35 jets arrival at 2013 and we know all those). Can someone confirm that Turkey has 350 Leopards? With respect, Deliogul 15:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Canada may purchase/lease a number of Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A6M's [1]. Right now Canada has a number of older Leopard 1s serving in combat in Afghanistan and may be looking to replace them with the newer and more survivable Leo 2s. L.J. Brooks 09:14, 14 Feb 2007 (UTC)
Here is an update [2] on Canada's plan to lease 20 Bundeswehr Leopard 2 A6M. According to various reports the lease has been approved by cabinet and is just awaiting the Prime Minister's approval. L.J. Brooks 11:44, 04 March 2007 (UTC)
Updated the page with the latest announcement that Canada is acquiring 120 Leopard 2s from the Netherlands and Germany. L.J. Brooks 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no reference that gives the breakdown of the number of 2A4s and 2A6s that Canada is purchasing. In fact, the only references I have seen suggest that all the ones we are purchasing (as opposed to the 20 we are leasing from Germany) are 2A4s. None of the references given in the article give the breakdown of models, only the breakdown of how many and what their general purpose will be (operational vs. training vs. support). I would like to know where people are getting the information that we are getting 40 2A4s & 40 2A6s. If there are no references to this breakdown, I intend to remove this info from the article. Kurt 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Breakdown here:
[3] Those more informed (i.e. the people in the military) quote the latter of 40 Leopard 2A6's (20 of them upgraded from the Leopard 2A4's), and 40 Leopard 2A4's.
ThePointblank
03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the recent edit: The tanks are from the Dutch, as stated in this press release [5]:
12-04-2007 22:34 NEDERLAND VERKOOPT LEOPARD TANKS AAN CANADA Defensie heeft honderd Leopard gevechtstanks verkocht aan Canada. De overeenkomst werd bekend gemaakt tijdens het bezoek van minister van Defensie, Eimert van Middelkoop, aan Canada. Het gaat om twintig Leopard’s 2 A6 en tachtig Leopard’s 2 A4.
Het afstoten van de tanks is onderdeel van de reductie van gevechtstanks waartoe Defensie al eerder besloot. Nederland houdt honderdtien Leopard’s 2 A6 tanks operationeel.
De aan Canada verkochte Leopard’s 2 A6 zijn vorig jaar volledig bijgewerkt. Defensie gaat als onderdeel van de overeenkomst de scholing van Canadese instructeurs verzorgen. De trainingen beginnen in mei.
Minister van Defensie Eimert van Middelkoop woont in Canada de ministeriële "Regional Command South" bijeenkomst in Quebec bij. Zie onderstaande link voor meer info over het bezoek.
Rough translation:
"The Ministry of Defence has sold a hundred Leopard Main Battle Tanks to Canada. De agreement was made public during the visit of Minister of Defence, Eimert van Middelkoop, to Canada. It concerns twenty Leopard 2 A6's and eighty Leopard 2 A4's.
The disposal of the tanks is part of the reduction of Main Battle Tanks to which the Ministry had already previously planned. The Netherlands will keep a hundred and ten operational Leopard 2 A6's.
The Leopard 2 A6 now sold to Canada were completely refurbished/overhauled last year. The Ministry will as part of the agreement take care of the training of Canadian instructors. Thise will start in May.
Minister of Defence Eimert van Middelkoop is currently active at the ministerial "Regional Command South" meeting in Quebec."
ThePointblank 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know how much this or any of ther other main battle tanks cost?
I re-organized the variants based on which German variant the foreign variants were derived from. Is this acceptable, or would you guys rather have the old way of listing things? (A1 to A6, then A6M and then national variants, then engineering variants) -- Edward Sandstig 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The acquisition of Leopard 2 tanks by Canada is vapourware. The intention to make the deal has been announced, but there is no official word that any tanks have been transferred. Please don't list Canada as having 100 or 20 Leopard 2 tanks, because as far as we know, it doesn't have them. Please don't change the facts for the sake of format.
Regarding status and timings, the CF backgrounder only says "Canada is negotiating government-to-government agreements for both borrowing and acquiring the Leopard 2 tanks. ... The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer." [6] So it sounds like neither deal is finalized, but the 20 German tanks are expected to be in Canadian hands and in the field very soon. — Michael Z. 2007-07-09 05:56 Z
I don't know why people keep changing the section where it states that the 20 German Leopard 2's are loaned, not leased so that it states that the tanks are leased. Keep the facts straight and consistent throughout the article; the 20 Leopard 2A6M's are LOANED. Not LEASED. According to CTV, Germany, which has “ been criticized for not allowing [its] troops to take part in the fighting in southern Afghanistan, have refused to take any money for the tanks Canadians have borrowed”. [9] The section stating that the Germans are not accepting any money from Canada for borrowing its tanks implies LOANED. Not LEASED. Period. ThePointblank 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)